As we are seeing with vaccines, we haven't yet realized the truth regarding the efficacy of genetically modified organisms.
We cannot be sure as to their safety; they were adopted mainly on the say-so of the companies' publicists, and with the blessings of former President George Herbert Walker Bush. Equivalence isn't EQUAL.
My advice, until proven otherwise, is to just say NO!

Total Pageviews

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Derrick Hamilton - Another Casualty of the Broken Justice System (Updated)

We've another one, dear readers. Can you guarantee your freedom, if you're convicted of a crime when you're in ANOTHER STATE, with dozens of witnesses who can attest to your presence at that time?
Read about Derrick Hamilton, and understand that a miscarriage of justice can happen to YOU. Let's put an end to this.

JUSTICE DENIED: THE MAGAZINE FOR THE WRONGLY CONVICTED
PAGE 10 ISSUE 41 - SUMMER 2008
On the morning of January 4, 1991, 15-year-old Tasheen Douglas was walking in Brooklyn, New York on his way to school when a red car pulled up alongside him. Inside the car were three acquaintances, Amir “YaYa” Johnson, Willie “Money-Will” Dawson and a guy he knew as Dequan. They told Douglas they were headed to see Nathaniel Cash to settle a dispute between Johnson and Cash. Hoping to mediate between Johnson and Cash, Douglas jumped in the car and rode to Cash’s apartment.
Upon arriving, Dawson called Cash to come downstairs to talk. When the conversation between Johnson and Cash in the building’s vestibule got heated, Cash smacked Johnson in the face and told him to leave. Johnson responded by pulling out a pistol and shooting Cash several times. Wounded, but still on his feet, Cash fled but was shot in the back by Dawson as he ran down the steps in front of the building. Cash then fell down and died.
Douglas, Johnson and Dequan left in the car they arrived in, while Dawson stayed behind. 911 called at 11:01 a.m. At 11:01 a.m. a female caller to 911 reported that a male had been shot at 215 Monroe Street, and three male blacks were fleeing in a red Pontiac Grand Am southbound on Nostrand Avenue. The police arrived at 11:04 a.m. and saw a hysterical woman standing over Cash’s body. When questioned by homicide Detective Delouisa, the woman told him her name was Karen Smith and she had spent the previous night with Cash. She also told him that at 10:25 a.m. she went to the corner store, and upon returning about 11 a.m. she discovered Cash dead outside the building. Smith told Delouisa that she “did not witness the shooting.” Delouisa made notes of his interview with Smith on two pages of his memo book.
After the police arrived Dawson came out of his hiding place and began telling onlookers that Derrick “Bush” Hamilton shot Cash. Dawson also spoke with Delouisa at the crime scene and identified himself as a friend of Cash. When Cash’s two sisters arrived, Dawson told them that Smith was involved in their brother’s murder. A brawl erupted between Smith and Cash’s sisters. Police separated the women, and since Smith was being accused of involvement in the murder she was transported to the 79th police precinct to be interrogated.
Smith’s precinct statement
When Delouisa questioned Smith at the precinct, she told him that Hamilton shot Cash, which is what Dawson was spreading around at the crime scene. Although Smith’s identification of Hamilton was contrary to her crime scene declaration to Delouisa that she “did not witness the shooting,” Hamilton became the prime suspect based on Smith’s claim. Smith also revealed that her name was Jewel Smith, not Karen Smith. She gave a false name at the crime scene because she was on probation and didn’t want trouble for herself.
No investigation of Smith’s two statements
The police detectives did not investigate Smith’s crime scene declaration that she was not present during Cash’s shooting. Nor was Smith questioned regarding her two inconsistent and incompatible statements on the day of the murder. The prosecutor subsequently relied on Smith’s identification of Hamilton to obtain his grand jury indictment.
On March 21, 1991, a joint task force from the New Haven Police Department and the NY Police Department converged on the beauty salon that Hamilton co-owned in New Haven, Connecticut. Hamilton was arrested and later transported to New York for trial.
Smith’s second recantation
Four days after Hamilton’s arrest, Smith went to the office in New York of Hamilton’s attorney George Sheinberg. She admitted to Sheinberg that she did not see Hamilton shoot Cash. However, she did not mention that she gave a crime scene statementunder the name of Karen Smith.
The trial
The prosecution’s case against Hamilton amounted to the evidence of one person: Smith. There was no other evidence even placing Hamilton at the crime scene. Smith did not want to testify during Hamilton’s July 1992 trial, but Judge Edward M. Rappaport directed Smith to “cooperate fully” with the prosecutor or risk being jailed. Faced with the judge’s order and possible perjury charges if she changed her grand jury testimony, Smith fabricated a story. She told the jury that Hamilton alone fired a gun at Cash.
Detective Delouisa reportedly retired prior to Hamilton’s trial and he wasn’t subpoenaed by the prosecution to testify. During jury selection, the memo book notes of Delouisa’s crime scene interview of Karen Smith were provided by the prosecutor to Sheinberg. But Sheinberg didn’t know who Karen Smith was. Prior to starting his cross-examination of Jewel Smith, Sheinberg “asked the Assistant District Attorney Anne Gutmann if JewelSmith was Karen Smith, and she said no.” Since Sheinberg didn’t know that Karen and Jewel Smith were the same person, he didn’t cross-examine her about the discrepancy between her crime scene statement and her statement hours later at the police station in which she identified Hamilton as the shooter.
After Smith testified, Sheinberg “asked Gutmann if she knew who Karen Smith was; she said she had no idea or she didn’t know.”(Quotes are from Sheinberg’s direct testimony: People v. Hamilton, No 142/91, Kings County Supreme Court, Post-conviction hearing, October 19, 1992.)
The prosecution’s ballistics expert was Thomas Natale, a technician with the Ballistics Section of the NYPD. On direct examination he testified:
Q. (By A.D.A. Gutmann) Based uponyour examination of 1 through 15 andPeople’s 7 and People’s 8, did you cometo a conclusion?
A. Yes, ma’am. … Two separate firearmsfired the discharged shells. …
The Court: Let me ask you a question,Detective Natale, as an expert, are yousaying based upon what you told us sofar, that two separate guns were used inthis, based upon the forensic evidence?
The Witness: That’s correct, your Honor.After several more pages of testimony inwhich Natale explained the process of microscopicexamination of bullet fragments,the judge asked him:
The Court: Based upon all of this, yourconclusion is that two different gunswere used?
The Witness: That is correct. (DerrickHamilton v. State, Trial transcript, 324-325, 327-328)
Natale’s testimony was in direct conflict with Smith’s testimony that she saw Cash shot by one person.
Sheinberg filed a Notice of Alibi Defense prior to Hamilton’s trial that listed Alphonso Dixon, Kim Freeman and James Hamiltonas witnesses, but they didn’t testify.
Alibi evidence not revealed to jury
On the evening of January 3, 1991, Hamilton and his companion Kim Freeman attended a going away party for a friend at the Quality Inn Hotel in New Haven, Connecticut. The event was hosted by Alphonso Dixon, Hamilton’s friend and his partner inthe beauty salon where Hamilton was arrested eleven weeks later in March.

The next morning (January 4) at approximately 11 a.m., Hamilton and Kelly Turner drove in her car from the Quality Inn Hotel to her talent booking business in New Haven. Turner and Hamilton had met at the party the night before, and learned that they had mutual business interests. At Turner’s office they discussed the music business and exchanged networking contacts. During their meeting one thing they discussed was Hamilton’s contacts might be able to help Turner booktalent at the Apollo Theater in Harlem.
Later that day (the 4th) Hamilton and Freeman were informed of Cash’s murder in Brooklyn. Freeman is the mother of a daughter fathered by Cash. Although distraught that her child’s father had been tragically killed, she was angry when told that people in Brooklyn were accusing Hamilton of shooting Cash. Dixon, who organized the party on the evening of January 3 that ended the next morning around 2 am, wanted to testify as adefense witness. However he was unable to travel from New Haven to the trial because of his poor health. Dixon wrote in an affidavit submitted to the judge a week before Hamilton’s trial began in July 1992:
I, Alphonso Dixon, being duly sworndeposes and says; that in January 1991,Me, Derrick Hamilton, and a few otherrelatives and friends gave a party at theQuality Inn Hotel … in the town of NewHaven, CT … On January 3, 1991 whichwas the night of the party. Derrick and Istayed at the party, until approximately2 or 3:00 a.m., which is when Derrickaccompanied by a female (whom I knowto be Kim) went to his room. … Derrickand [his brother] James stayed with mefrom January 3, 1991 until January 5,1991. … He used the money his deceasedfather left to him and invested itin a Beauty Salon in New Haven, CT. …
On approximately March 21, 1991, Derrickwas arrested in the Salon …Along with this affidavit is a letter frommy Doctor, who advised me not to travelto New York to testify, due to mymedical problems …(Affidavit of Alphonso Dixon, June 24,1992.)
Dixon’s doctor wrote a letter explaining Dixon’s health condition:
Mr. Alphonso Dixon is followed at theCardiology Clinic and is suffering froma severe dilated cardiomyopathy withcongestive heart failure.Sincerely,Dr. Marc Moreau, M.D.June 25, 1992
During Hamilton’s trial their was no testimonyregarding Dixon’s affidavit or the doctor’s letter.
Kim Freeman executed an affidavit several days prior to Hamilton’s trial in which she stated in part:
[O]n Friday January 4, 1991, I was inNew Haven, Connecticut with DerrickHamilton. We went there on Thursday,January the 3rd … to attend a party. Istayed there with Derrick for the weekend,and found out from Derrick that mychild’s father had been murdered andpeople were saying that Derrick committedthe murder. If Nathaniel [Cash] waskilled on January 4th, I know it was impossiblefor Derrick to do this because Iwas with him … I will not testify in acourt of law because I have been threatenedby Nate’s friends, that if I come tocourt I will be murdered like Money-Will(Willie Dawson) was killed. … I trust thisdocument will shed light on a matter Iknow is true. … Please let this be enoughto satisfy the court and Derrick's attorney,because I would flee if I thought I wouldbe called and had to testify publicity tothese events. My life means more to meand my child, than helping Derrick oranyone else. Thank you for listening.
(Affidavit of Kim Freeman, June 29, 1992.)
Kim Freeman didn’t testify and their was no testimony regarding her affidavit. So the jury convicted Hamilton without knowing there were credible witnesses who could establish an alibi defense for his presence in New Haven on the day of Cash’s murder 82 miles away in Brooklyn.* Hamilton’s attorney didn’t present any witnesses, instead he relied on the strategy of trying to poke holes in the prosecution’s case to demonstrate there was reasonable doubt of Hamilton’s guilt.
The verdict
The jury advised the judge on July 17, 1992 that they were deadlock and could not reach a verdict. The jury’s note read: “Your Honor, after serious deliberation of the evidence presented, we are unable to reach a unanimous decision. The weight and burden of our deliberations are at the point of causing severe mental and emotional anguish. We feel that we have conscientiously attempted to attain a unanimous decision.” The judge ordered the jury to continue deliberating. Later that day they convicted Hamilton of second-degree murder. Hamilton was later sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.
Post-verdict and post-conviction testimony, affidavits and evidence
After Hamilton’s conviction he began to obtain affidavits from people who either had knowledge he did not shoot Cash or that he was in New Haven at the time of the crime. He obtained an affidavit from Turner, who he was with at the time of Cash’smurder, in which she states:
1. … I am presently a police officer withthe New Haven, Connecticut Police Department.2. I have been a member of said policedepartment since November 22, 1991.…6. I first met Derrick Hamilton (Hamilton)on the evening of January 3, 1991 when Iwas introduced to him at a party I attendedin the Banquet Room at the Quality Innlocated at Exit 59 of the Wilbur CrossParkway in New Haven, Connecticut.…10. At the time, I ran a talent agencylocated at 1440 Whaley Avenue, NewHaven, Connecticut.11. It was my job to acquire jobs andbook groups for shows, clubs, parties, etc.12. I recall that I spoke for some timewith Hamilton concerning my business,and Hamilton seemed to think he couldhelp me with bookings in New York Citywhere he said he had several contacts.13. I made an appointment that eveningwith Hamilton to meet him at the QualityInn the following morning between 11:00a.m. and 11:15 a.m. in order to show himmy office and further discuss business.14. The party at the Quality Inn ended atapproximately 1 or 2 a.m.15. The following morning, January 4,1991 I drove to the above Quality Innand picked up Hamilton between 11 and11:15 am.16. Thereafter, we drove to my office at1440 Whaley Avenue in New Haven,arriving there at approximately 11:20 am.17. The meeting with Hamilton concludedat about 12 noon.…20. I recall the dates very clearly because,among other things, I clearly recallthat the above going-away partywas three days after New Year’s Eve.(Affidavit of Kelly Turner, May 1995.)

Davette Mahan, who worked with Turner at the talent agency, also executed an affidavit confirming from her personal knowledge that Turner met with Hamilton on the late morning of January 4. The Quality Inn’s billing records show that Dixon was charged $803.60 for a sixty to one hundred person party in the Washington South conference room on the evening of January 3. Their records also show payments for hotel rooms at the Quality Inn.
Several of the affidavits Hamilton obtained were by people who claimed to have given statements to the police or the prosecutor. However, those statements were not disclosed to Hamilton’s attorney even though they were exculpatory. Darren Breeden provided an affidavit that states in part:
I recall speaking to A.D.A. Anne Gutmannabout Derrick Hamilton [“Bush”]and the accusations of murder madeagainst him by Jewel Smith.I told A.D.A. Gutmann, Mr. Hamilton didnot shoot Cash. I was on Nostrand andGates the same day of the shooting speakingto a person named Money Will whotold me that himself (Money Will) and aperson named Yaya shot Nate after Nateslapped Yaya. They spread the wordaround saying Bush did it because theydidn’t want to get arrested for the crime.I also spoke to Jewel Smith, around Marchof 1991 … Jewel told me that she neverwitnessed the crime, but had been forcedto say Bush did it because the police hadthreatened to lock her up until she testifiedto having seen Bush shoot Nathaniel …I told Ms. Gutmann, about my conversationwith Money Will and Jewel, yet sheinsisted if I wanted a deal with their officeon my pending cases, I would have totestify on Derrick Hamilton [“Bush”] implicatinghim in Nathaniel Cash’s murder.I thought about it for a while, then declinedthe offer … I couldn’t see myself lying onDerrick Hamilton, and [him] getting 20years to life for my part in the subterfuge.(Affidavit of Darren Breeden, August10, 1996.)
Tasheen Douglas was with Johnson (“YaYa”) and Dawson (“Will”), and he saw them shoot Cash. Douglas’ police statement wasn’t provided to Hamilton’s attorney. Douglas stated in an affidavit after Hamilton’s trial:
1. That the affidavit I’m making is trueand based on my recollection as to thebest of my knowledge of an interviewwith law enforcement agencies of KingsCounty in the months of June or July1992 or soon before said months.2. That I was interviewed and stated infull what knowledge I had concerningthe shooting death of Nathaniel. Cash onJanuary 4, 1991. I told the people whoquestioned me that my friends YaYaand Will killed Nate.3. The reason Nate died was because heslapped YaYa after they had an argument.On the day of the shooting nobodywas conscious that Nate wasgonna get shot or killed, it happenedspontaneously. Nate slapped YaYa andthe next thing I knew both Will andYaYa started shooting him (Nate).4. Present on the scene of the crime wasmyself, Money Will (Will), YaYa andDaquan. Our purpose being there was totalk to Nate about threats he madeagainst YaYa. …5. Once Nate slapped YaYa things gotout of hand. We all left after the shootingexcept Will who stayed. YaYa had ared car which I believe was a Trans Amor something. Will later told me andYaYa that he made it look like “Bush”Derrick Hamilton, killed Nate, becauseeveryone in the neighborhood knew thatthey had a dispute recently …7. I told the law enforcement agentswhat I knew when they came to see me.Which was that Derrick Hamilton wasinnocent and that YaYa and Will wasguilty of the murder of Nate.8. At the time of the shooting no onewas present except Me, Will, YaYa andDaquan. Nobody else witnessed theshooting. …(Affidavit of Tasheen Douglas, September10, 1993.)

Felicia Schuler was another person who provided an affidavit. She swore that Smith and her were at the grocery store at the time Cash was murdered. Felicia Schuler’s affidavit was executed on December 8, 1992. The most important affidavit was by the prosecution’s key witness – Jewel Smith.
Hamilton discovered after his conviction that Karen Smith who gave the crime scene statement and Jewel Smith who testified at his trial, are the same woman. A private investigator hired by Hamilton learned she was living in North Carolina and traveled there in April 1993 to interview her. Smith executed an affidavit in which she stated in part:
Q. Mrs. Smith did you testify … againstDerrick Hamilton?A. YesQ. Was your testimony true?A. No…Q. On January 4, 1991, did you in fact eversee Derrick Hamilton at anytime that day?A. NoQ. Did you ever see Derrick Hamiltonfire a gun which killed Nathaniel Cashin your presence?A. NoQ. Did you testify truthfully when youstated that you saw Derrick Hamiltonshoot Nathaniel Cash numerous times?A. NoQ. Did you ever tell the police or theDistrict Attorneys Office that what youwere to testify to was untruthful?A. Yes, several times…Q. When you made these revelations tothese officials that the testimony you weregoing to give was false what did they doto make you falsely testify in this case?A. They threaten me; gave me ultimatum,they would put me in jail for themurder until I was ready to testify, takemy kids from me and I would never seethem again and get me violated for beingwith a known felon.…Q. Has anyone made any threats orpromise to you to conduct this interviewand recant upon prior testimony?A. No(Jewel Smith Affidavit of April 21, 1993.)

At least 13 people have provided an affidavit or testified during post-conviction proceedings either that Hamilton wasn’t at the crime scene, that individuals other than Hamilton are responsible for Cash’s murder, or that Smith wasn’t present at the time of the shooting.
Appeals denied
After Hamilton was found guilty in July 1992, he filed a pro se motion to set aside the verdict based on newly discovered evidence of his innocence. The key evidence was Smith’s sworn recantation. Several evidentiary hearings were held regarding that motion. Smith testified that she did not see Hamilton shoot Cash, and Det. Delouisa testified that Smith was the woman who gave him the spontaneous crime scene statement that she “did not witness the shooting.” On July 8, 1993 the judge denied the motion. ruling that Smith’srecantation of her trial testimony wasn’t credible. Four days later Hamilton was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Hamilton filed a pro se motion on January 5, 1994 to vacate his judgment of conviction. He claimed prosecution Brady andRosario violations, and that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to investigate witnesses or subpoena witnesses who could have established an alibi defense that Hamilton was in New Haven at the time of the crime. Judge Rappaport denied most of Hamilton’s claims. Among his rulings were that neither the inability of Dixon to testify because of ill health, nor the failure of Freeman to testify because of fears for the safety of her and her child, had anything to do with the competence of Hamilton’s attorney. The judge also denied Hamilton’s Brady and Rosario’s claims, ruling there was “insufficient proof the prosecution was inpossession of this exculpatory evidence.”
However, Judge Rappaport did grant Hamilton an evidentiary hearing regarding Tasheen Douglas’ affidavit of September 1993. Douglas subsequently testified in detail about the events described in his affidavit. On April 2, 1996 Judge Edward M. Rappaport judge ruled there was no Brady violation regarding the four statements that Douglas claimed to have made to NYPD detectives, because of insufficient evidence that the prosecution was in possession of Douglas’ exculpatory statements.Even though Hamilton’s conviction was based solely on the trial testimony of Smith that she recanted, the judge also ruled that Douglas’ affidavit wasn’t “new evidence” warranting a new trial, because it wasn’t sufficient by itself to have altered the jury’s verdict. In addition, the judge refused to considerthe exculpatory alibi affidavits of Turner and Mahan, who were not listed as witnesses on Hamilton’s Notice of Alibi Defense. The New York Appellate Division granted Hamilton leave to appeal the motion’s denial, and consolidated his direct appeal into that appeal. In 2000 the appeals court denied Hamilton’s direct appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the motion to vacate his conviction he filed in 1994. (See, People v. Hamilton,272 A.D.2d 553 (2000).) In its ruling the court determined that Hamilton’s attorney wasn’t ineffective for failing to investigate or subpoena alibi or exculpatory witnesses.
Federal habeas corpus petition
Having exhausted his state remedies, Hamilton filed a pro-se federal habeas corpus petition on March 16, 2001. U.S District Court Judge Gleeson denied the petition on January 16, 2004. However, Gleeson did acknowledge that if Hamilton’s attorney had known that Jewel Smith made crime scene declaration that she did not witness the shooting, it could have been used to undermine her trial testimony.
Coram nobis writ denied
Hamilton filed a pro se writ of error coram nobis in state court to vacate the appeals court’s 2000 decision denying his direct appeal. Hamilton claimed ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. On September 9, 2008 the New York Appellate Division denied Hamilton’s writ in a one-line ruling:
“The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel.” People v. Hamilton, 2008 NY Slip Op 06851 (N.Y. App. Div. 9/9/2008).
Smith supports Hamilton’s release
In addition to Smith’s admission during Hamilton’s post-conviction hearing that she perjured herself during her grand jury and trial testimony, and her affidavit admitting her perjury, she wrote letters to the appellate judges prior to their denial of Hamilton’s direct appeal in 2000, and she wrote letters on his behalf to NY Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in 2007 and to the New York State Board of Parole.
Current status
Hamilton is gathering affidavits and letters to include with a pardon application. Hamilton’s court appointed attorney in 1992 and 1993 during his post-trial challenge to his conviction was New York attorney Howard Weiswasser. Fifteen years laterWeiswasser executed an Affirmation on April 25, 2008 that was based on his extensive knowledge of Hamilton’s case. Weiswasser swore: “Based upon all I know about this matter it is my opinion that DERRICK HAMILTON is an innocent man with an unjust conviction.”
Derrick Hamilton can be written at:
Derrick Hamilton 93-A-5631Shawangunk CFP.O. Box 700Wallkill, NY 12589
Nicole Hamilton is Derrick Hamilton’s wifeand she is his outside contact. Email her at,Nickmickron@yahoo.com
* It is 82 miles from the Quality Inn in New Haven, CTto the location of Cash’s murder in Brooklyn, accordingto Mapquest.com, and the travel time is 1 hr. 53 minutes.

About Me

This, however, allowed me to clear my head and I've now found my true calling - spearheading the eradication of FrankenFoods from our food supply.

It is irresponsible and foolhardy to allow our food supply to be suborned by the likes of Monsanto, Sygenta, BASF and all other companies involved in the creation and promotion of genetically modified organisms.